SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 1811
- 15T2
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR GSAMP 2006
- FM1, Plaintiff
- Respondent,

v. MEHMET SARHAN, MRS. MEHMET SARHAN, HIS WIFE; MUHARREN SARHAN, Defendants
- Appellants.

______________________________

Submitted January 9, 2017

– Decided Before Judges Nugent and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Morris County, Docket No. F
- 19530
- 08. Mehmet Sarhan, appellant pro se. Reed Smith LLP, attorneys for respondent (Henry F. Reichner, on the brief).
PER CURIAM In this residential foreclosure action, defendant Mehmet Sarhan appeals the November 23, 2015 final judgment. After a NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough it is posted on the internet , this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R .1:36
- 3.

March 31 , 20172 A - 1811
- 15T2

review of the contentions in light of the applicable legal principles , w e affirm. We discern the following facts and procedural history from the record on appeal. On January 12, 2006, defendant executed a $382,500 Promissory Note to FGC Commercial Mortgage Finance dba Fremont Mortgage (Fremont Mortgage) and a mortgage in the same amount to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS)
to secure the note. On January 20, 2006, Fremont Mortgage assigned the mortgage to Fremont Savings and Loan. The mortgage was recorded with the Morris County Clerk on January 25. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company
thereafter acquired the loan from Fremont Savings and Loan to include it in a pool of mortgage loans to be deposited in the
GSAMP 2006
- FM1 trust (the Trust). On May 20, 2008, MERS assigned
the m ortgage to plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as
trustee for the Trust. Defendant defaulted on the loan on February 1, 2008. A Notice of Intent to Foreclose (NOI) was sent on March 24, 2008 ; the NOI was later amended to identify plaintiff as the
lender. Plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint on May 21, 2008.
Defendant filed an answer in September 2008 . However the answer was stricken in November 2009; the judge noted there were no meritorious defenses. The case was subsequently dismissed without3 A - 1811
- 15T2

prejudice for failure to prosecute i n September 2013, but reinstated i n August 2014. On September 9, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended foreclosure complaint. D efendant filed an answer and affirmative defenses . Plaintiff's mo tion to strike defendant's answer was granted o n
Ju ne 22, 2015 by Judge Stephan P. Hansbury. In his statement of

reasons accompanying the order , Judge Hansbury found that plaintiff had physical possession of the note and mortgage prior to filing the foreclosure complaint , and therefore , plai ntiff had standing to bring a foreclosure action . The judge concluded that there were no material issues of f act with respect to plaintiff's right to foreclose and transferred the matter to the Foreclosure Unit of the Superior Court of New Jersey to proceed as an

u ncontested matter. Final judgment was entered on November 23,
2015. On appeal, defendant raises the following issues :

I. The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that an unjust result should b e avoided.
II. N.J.S.A. 56:8
- 1 to
- 20 is in place to protect consumer s from the wrongful acts of the mortgage institutions. III. The plaintiff must meet specific criteria to recover on a promissary [sic] note.
IV. The court has held that the lender must be the owner of the note.4 A - 1811
- 15T2 V. Federal district courts have dismissed foreclosure cases for lack of standing.
VI. The moving party must prove that it is, in fact, a damaged party. VII. The court has set specific rules that were put in place especially in light of the irregular practices of the banking industry. We have considered defendant's contentions in light of the record and applicable legal principles and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11
- 3(e)(1)(E). We add the following brief comments.
In order to have standing , the "party seeking to foreclose a mortgage must own or control the underlying debt." Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford , 418 N.J. Super. 592, 597 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Bank of N.Y. v. Raftogianis , 418 N.J. Super. 323, 327
- 28 (Ch. Div. 2 010)). S tanding is conferred by "either possession of the note or an assignment of the mortgage that predated the original complaint. . . . " Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. v. Angeles , 428 N.J. Super . 315, 318 (App. Div. 2012) (citing Deutsche Bank
Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell , 422 N.J. Super. 214, 216 (App. Div. 2011)). Without ownership or control, a plaintiff cannot "proceed with the foreclosure action and the complaint must be dismissed." Wells Fargo Bank , supra , 418 N.J. Super. at 597 ( quoting Bank of
N.Y. , supra , 418 N.J. Super. at 3 5 7
- 59 ).5 A - 1811
- 15T2

Here, we are satisfied that plaintiff established a prima facie case for foreclosure . Plaintiff clearly demonstrated its standing to foreclose on the property based on the assignment of the mortgage from MERS on May 20, 2008 , which predat e d the May 2 1 , 2008 filing of the foreclosure complaint. Upon that assignment and underlying transfer of possession, plaintiff became the holder of the instrument. Defendant argue s plaintiff cannot substantiate its possession of the note but provide s no documentary evidence in support of his argumen t. Therefore, defendant ha s not established that he is entitled to relief from the final judgment . Affirm ed .